Nouriel Roubini, a professor at NYU’s Stern School of Business and CEO of Roubini Macro Associates, was Senior Economist for International Affairs in the White House's Council of Economic Advisers during the Clinton Administration. He has worked for the International Monetary Fund, the US Federal Reserve, and the World Bank.

There is another aspect of this that Nouriel Roubini does not mention. In the U.S. trade deals have typically been promoted by Democratic presidents. However, the actual votes have come from Republicans. NAFTA is a good example. Democratic Senators were split (27/26). Republican Senators were strongly favorable (34/12). Democratic members of the House were opposed (102/156). Republican members of the House supported NAFTA (132/43).

This pattern of Democratic presidents supporting "free trade" and elected Democrats opposing it, has continued to the present. Obama got his TIPP, and TPP votes from Republicans, not Democrats. The final TPP vote was 219/211. Democrats opposed the TPP (28/157). Republicans supported it (191/54).

The point of all this should be clear. Trade deals only pass in the U.S. with Republican support. If trade deals included compensation for the "losers", Republican support would be near zero. A few more Democrats might favor trade deals if they had compensation. However, Republican opposition would be near unanimous. Traditional Republicans (the #nevertrump crowd) don't support trade deals because they are good for America, they support trade deals because they are good for the corporate elite.

If trade deals, came with tax hikes to compensate the "losers", traditional Republicans would vote no. State differently, "free trade" is only acceptable to traditional Republicans if it makes the rich richer and the poor poorer. Of course, plenty of Democrats are fully in agreement. Obama called the "losers" "bitter clingers". Hillary called them "deplorables". The elite consensus, that the losers from globalization should not be compensated is very strong in the U.S.

Schumpeter's notion of creative destruction was based on innovation, broadly speaking. The only change wrought by globalization is that in the rules of the game - a system gamed for the benefit of internationally mobile capital and multinational corporations. Make them pay.

Nice analysis, absurd conclusion. It appears to both predict and accept globalization's continuing failure to distribute economic equity across a significant cross-section of First World workers. Incredibly, we are asked to subsidize the inequitable results of globalization through state-sponsored pacification programs of the growing unemployed and disaffected. Why? To prevent them from obstructing our march to a very clouded economic end-game. Nouriel's suggestion takes a page from Saudi domestic pacification policies. Neither is sustainable and both reflect systemic failures of equitable labor and capital distribution (and many other problems). The questions that dislocated and alienated workers are asking is simple: what is globalization's end-game and what place will the formerly middle class have in it? Unless neoliberal pols and enabling economists provide plain-spoken answers to a fast metastasizing cohort of disgruntled voters, their vision of a global economy in which the major powers hold hands and sing "cumbaya" at the WTO will give way to an awful alternative. "Winners compensate losers?" "Transitional Unemployment?" No. It's time to pull our heads out of the sand and address the "here and now" with sustainable policies.

It is certainly true that in the U.S. that the Federal government (Congress) has refused to adopt compensation policies when trade agreements and incentives for labor migration have been adopted. Both major parties have failed in this regard. Moreover, there is little indication this will change in any major way in the the foreseeable future. When you consider that economic financial benefits to U.S. individuals and organizations is more than large enough to fund major compensation efforts, it becomes clear that the disconnect between economic trade theory and actual social-political realities is so great as to render theory pretty much irrelevant. Potential compensation seems like a weak defense against the toxic mix of racism, know-nothing hysteria, and actual economic pain we're experiencing.

Obviously the causes and variables of this trend (which I agree with) are highly multidimensional, but if I am not mistaken the thrust of the conservative, anti-glob backlash (pro Trump, pro Brexit) occurs more among older workers than younger. The youngsters are the base of Hillary/Bernie/Stay. What are your thoughts on this? Potentially it's more cultural than economic in nature...though I understand that is unsatisfying as an economist without more structure.

If median real wages in the US haven't risen in four decades, and those of the top quintile have grown substantially, then it might be possible to conclude that the majority of income earners (the bottom four quintiles) have lost out in the globalization process.

As well, globalization creates the economic environment that dictates the trajectory of innovative activity, thereby indicating that the implications of technological unemployment are not independent of the overall economic environment. Would the pattern and pace of technological change in the early phases of the industrial revolution, for example, in the leading industry - cotton textiles, been realized without the pattern of 18th century globalization: imperialism and the slave trade?

With all due respect, "compensating the losers" is not enough, because globalization also causes non-economic harm. Suppose we did compensate the losers (although, in all of history this has never happened)? What about the loss of dignity for those displaced workers? And, please don't tell me that you are going to put a price on that dignity!

What about the loss of sovereignty? Trade agreements like TPP, NAFTA, WTO, and TIPP trump provisions in our Constitution. What, precisely, is the dollar value of that? And, who should receive that compensation?

What about the moral bankruptcy of allowing trade in goods produced by slavery? Trade agreements such as those listed above prevent effective national legislation that might reduce such trade. What, precisely, is the dollar value of forcing a nation to accept such goods?

I could go on and on, but I'll stop here. The theory of comparative advantage in trade is just nonsense, because with global (or non-local) trade the effect on externalities swamps any monetary flow. When will you economists wake up?

Agree...he's too orthodox on this and doesn't understand in the least the psychology of the poor whatsoever.
People don't want benefits. They want to work for enterprises that have some kind of tangible future. They don't want to be crawling on their bellies for some government or EU grant. Wasn't that utterly obvious after the referendum?

'But it can be contained and managed through policies that compensate workers for its collateral damage and costs. '

Possibly. but until we see even the beginning of such policies, we won't know. Meantime there's a Europe-wide assault on even such mitigating policies as are in place - social 'safety-nets', which takes us in exactly the opposite direction.

As to 'new jobs for old' - get real. The majority of 'new jobs' are at or below basic survival income. Even ignoring the human misery this causes, this also undermines the level of consumption that kept things afloat pre-2008. so from both directions - justice and economics - this is a losers' game.

Globalization's losers would prefer well-paying jobs to 'compensation' from the winners, which is the reason nationalist parties are suggesting barriers to trade and migration rather than, say, an increase in the progressivity of the tax code. A better prescription would be large-scale investment in human capital via much greater investment in and much higher standards for primary, secondary, and post-graduate education.

Just facts: Juncker is the chief architect of the lux leak tax evasion scheme .. now president of the EU. Barroso, ex head of the commission, is now working for goldman sachs. Mario draghi, now president of the ECB is an ex goldman sachs director, the spanish commissioner for energy is has personal conflicting interests. The clintons are indebted in millions of dollars of donation to goldmansachs and other banks, big pharma, aipac, ..
Trade agreements, globalisation and technology is not about import/export, it's about settings the rules to enable market concentration/monopoly for the big, and extreme competition for the small: uber, airbnb, upwork, microsoft, big pharma, copyrights, ...Even for manufactured or food products: rules with low quality standards (gmo, hormones, anitbiotics, taxation) coupled thousands of safety rules that force small businesses to close.
It's not loosing in a "level playing field".. it's being stolen by a rigged political and economical system !!

Roubini shouldn talk about compensation of the loosers, as this is absolutely endogeneous... thy-your-neighboors politics makes it impossible for states to protect anyone without increasing taxes and making capital and labor move. In addition, a workers with a good useful "old fashion" jobs will not be compensated by unemployment benefits or moving to the informal or low skill service sector..

Global Warming, ageing, offshoring, globalisation, automation, robotisation...
looking at the world today , it s almost a certainty that Communism V2.0 will be what will save us. And that should not be a bad thing... as capitalism v2.0 seem to be running out of ideas. And cannot control its own genes. the will to concentrate power to stifle competition and collect ever more bigger amounts of wealth in ever a smaller number of hands. An, let s be honest, we haven't really tried communism yet, have we? always turned into some sort of fascism before it got implemented..

Phenomenon - Globalization
Winners - Minority
Losers - Large Section of Population
Solution - Redistribution thru Direct Benefit or Free Services
Problem - Money for such a large scale scheme with minority beneficiaries hiding wealth in tax havens with the help of politicians / policy makers who were chosen by large section of electorate.
Collateral Damage - The so called "middle income earners" burdened with more and more "taxes" to fund freebies for "losers of globalization"; just because "middle income earners" have no way to hide" income" or evade tax especially "salaried class".

Roubini has rightly pointed out the globalisation discontents both right and left of middle stream of economic and political thoughts in their struggle to minimising risks and maximising their gains given the irresistible globalisation process.it is affecting and challenging the traditional establishments demanding them to secure the traditional national and individual frèdoms without loss of vested social securities.

Free trade in services and international migrations with chief labor like polish or East European immigrants let alone non European labor and skilled labour in the face fierce free competitive prices and wages as a part of levelling of wages in free globalisation process is threatening the employment and living standards of developed countries.this is but a manifest free market powerful global force capable of bulldozing it's opponents and no political party or visionary leader will rally it's people to rashly dash this global force and they are doomed to fail.
It is here the confusion among political parties and politicians each one his or their own adhoc solutions without coherence and splits and new political forces springing.

Understand that nationalism and localism antagonistic globalism and globalisation is like tribalism opposing nationalism and national forces by whatever name you may call as local feudal vs national capitalism or some other name it is a historical evolution by subsuming opposing forces to advanced productive forces.

Life become testing only in the face chaos not when unthreatened growth.But history is replete with instances that new normal without some bloodshed is exceptional like in British national history where democratic traditions and strong judicial common law precedents ruled over violent revolutions.

Let judicial impartial decision making after hearing the affected develop new ideas which should include freedom to challenge parlementary supemacy like in times of Lord coke laying the rule of supremacy of common law over the royal prerogative and like marshal federal over state in times of repugnance and now such repugnance is arising between global over national jurisdictions but we have to wait like another coke or marshal to declare the new normal and political fault lines die.

Till then such tumultuous contradictory politics and politicians rule and we have to bear as law abiding citizens.

Stephen Edwards. I totally agree with you. According to the Pew Research Center, today's average hourly wage has roughly the same buying power as it did in 1973 – more than 40 years ago. A big thanks to globalism.
This is a life and death struggle to maintain our cultures, our way of life from the globalists and the muslimization of Europe by birth rate and migrant-invaders. We need a Cromwell and all we get are turncoats, brazen-scoundrels like Tony Blair.

Lakshama, we have been here before, all throughout the 18th and 19th century, the mercantilism and free trade wave, it ended with 2 world wars because the main goal isn't fair market nor free trade, the policy was colonialism and occupation.

There is no true globalization movement, that's just propaganda. US and UK have never left the standards, they don't use metric system, for instance, what they mean by globalization is access to market and resources, which all and all is Free trade and mercantilism of the 18th century, colonialism of the 19th century.

Now, true globalization is an irresistible force, but that means the spread of liberal ideas, equality, freedom, democracy, education, and once this ideas spread, trade will be no longer the driving force of emergent economies, because nowadays our economies are service economies, not resource ones. Developing countries will understand that low wage specialization is a silly path to growth; it promotes export oligarchies and drives the countries back, nor forward. So there will be no irresistible push to equalize wages, because even in countries there are massive disparities in wages (London vs rest of England, NY and California vs Midwest and South, etc etc)

Then Havoc will be cried and the dogs of war will be loosed. If what you say is correct and labor is doomed to the living Standards and wages of the 3rd world due to globalization. The results will, and of this I have no doubt whatsoever, throw to the top a leader who will make Adolph Hitler and Robespierre look like choirboys. You can't disenfranchise and reduce to nothing 30 - 60 % of your population without winding up waist deep in blood and body parts. Maybe it is tribal and primitive but I and whole lot of people in my position are NOT going to accept the new feudalism and if this be the new law and order to HELL with law and order.

We have come to a stage where Economic Growth is at the centre of everything and because it leads to job creation and thereby gives people a living. But what we are ignorant of is what is the essential driver of this growth? and for whom this growth is to be achieved? The answer to both the questions will be Population or People. Hence if we analyze every current trend whether it be the rise of Donald Trump or Brexit the causes and effects of these events are always addressed from their impact on economic growth. But if we analyze their implications from a Population perspective and what will its disastrous impact will be on the people then we get our real answers which are appalling and will steer the debate about global issues in the right direction which is the need of the hour

So let's ask the question. If you lived in a country with 5% unemployment, would you want to abdicate any of the economic planning of your country to planners from countries with 10%, 20%, or even 30% unemployment?

In a fundamentally important respect, the civil rights and feminist movements were precursors to globalization. The civil rights movement forced whites to compete for jobs and wages with nonwhites; the feminist movement forced men to compete women. Globalization forces American citizens to compete for jobs and wages with foreigners. It follows that Reagan foreshadowed Trump. Just like the Trumpist mob, the Reagan Democrats were the fascists of their time.

Sorry, but I don't see how human right movement have anyting to do with Globalization. Many of the defenders of free trade and colonislism were/are bigots. They even went to the extent of making a country dependent of Opium, just because they wanted to force FREE TRADE on China...

The motivations behind Globalization are the exploitation of other human beings, if not they woudn't conceive trading and accepting money for non-democratic countries.

I'm sure that anti-globalization, anti-immigration was a major force behind the Brexit, they were not the only ones. Britain has always been a reluctant bride the the Unified Europe. It's wanted a limited connection to enjoy some of that efficiency w/o losing their identity & soveringty . Unfortunately the technocrats of the EU had a different vision & goal and were forcing ever one & all to comply to that grand plan. Many voters in the Remain camp disagreed with much of the EU policies but though the costs of leaving was worse that suffering though the undesirable EU mandates, court decisions. trade negotiation limits.
If a group that you joined starts moving in directions that you disagree with & you're constantly outvoted you've got to options, stay give them your support for positions you strongly disagree with, or go & hope that you're leaving might spark changes or options that were not available before.

Your conclusion about policies concerning "losers" from globalization is correct, but I think you miss a bigger issue that causes many to consider Trump. That is the blatant corruption of political elites and businesses. To ignore immigration laws being broken to benefit business is abhorrent. No indictments from the 2008 crisis shows that there are two sets of rules. Crony capitalism protects colleges and health care from the free market. Regulation preserves the established businesses more than it protects consumers.
Whether the system is rigged is debatable, but it sure is broken.

One of the problem is that winners are too sure about the inability of the loser to shake the system and to make them accountable for the failures like financial crisis, destruction of social and educational services. Lots of problems have been inflicted on society by elites who instead of fighting economical and political chalenges are more occupied to fight the society.

Globalisation is often indicated as the cause of impoverished low-skill workers, youth unemployment, and therefore political unrest in western Europe.
In my opinion, an other factor is much more important in explaining the above indicated ills.
Around 1950, most western european countries had transformed from war- to peace-economies. Their state expenditure has grown since faster than any other category of GDP. State consumption (approx. state expenditure minus the net cost of social transfers, and the net cost of investment in infrastructure and education) increased even faster. The effect is, that especially the lower income groups see disappear a very significant part of their net revenues in the form of taxes and other charges to finance that state consumption. As Christian Noyer, Governor of the Bank de France, said in an interview in August 2012 : We have to further develop our social model. It is not any more adapted to worldwide competition John Gray, the well known british historian and politologist said in 2012 the same in Amsterdam University in even cruder terms.

Peter, when we continue to persist believing that the only way to create value is through the exploitation of other human beings, then we cannot hope for another outcome.

Value isn’t zero sum game, and competition isn’t the reason for the human race success. We can grow through cooperation has long has we all have a base ground of understanding. First the point in globalization should be to improve the conditions of living on the less developed countries, not explore them and use this differences for the profit of few. Second more then a export policies, underdeveloped countries need to develop their internal demand.

The reason so many of us are against “Globalization” it’s because for the ones in power, its just another fancy word for COLONIALISM

There is little hope of marked reduction in public spending in the UK. most of what is left is ringfenced, ie largely inaccessible due to political promises, tax revenue is 39% of GDP. Further developed economies tend to provide welfare and healthcare because it is demanded at the ballot box. The situation in France is different, tax revenue is 44.% of GDP. (Germany is 40.4%). This data has probably changed as it is a couple of years old but I very much doubt France has cut back

As a consequence of the policies of this US administration, globalisation has been halted and is being replaced by regionalisation. The old world order is in a zombie state pending the emergence of a saviour. With the dismal quality of the current political and financial leadership who abondon ship at the first air breeze, hope any hope is very scarce indeed.

@ M M
I dont expect art 50 to be triggered without debate. Anyway Brexit is only one EU problem. There are also two groups in the EU, hotheads and coolheads, unsurprisingly we hear more from the hotheads

Steve, if art. 50 is triggered without any debate in the UK parliament and an Act of parliament (The Scots debated it by the way) that would mean the end of civilisation as we know it. The stock markets will crash the pounds will be devalued to levels never seen before. Democracy must take its course. Fiscal policies, to include all forms of taxation, or monetary policies for this matter, on their own are not sufficient in times of crises. What is needed now more than ever is "Trust" and "Confidence" in the system and in the establishment and these two are lacking and shall be lacking for quite some time.

Yes it did -- but the other half of the equation is the democratic deficit in Brussels.

Which, due to that democratic deficit there, allowed all sorts of problems to flourish that in a more profound and more intentful democracy would have been handled in the normal course of governance.

Low ambition in the 'democracy department' of the EU is responsible for porous EU borders, excessively high immigration loads for some EU nations, high unemployment, higher crime / ghettoization (check Sweden's experience for one example, though they tried mightily to avoid it) offshoring of jobs, and so much more.

Yes, I agree, globalization is a net gain to the global economies, and to national economies. Unchecked globalization *has* caused a host of ills -- that so far, haven't been addressed.

From the Swiss referendum result in 2014, to Brexit in 2016, to ghettos in Sweden of all places(!) higher crime, job losses, etc... It's quite a long list.

And the unelected mandarins in Brussels were too busy counting their money to take notice.

In case they missed the message, it's this; You Can't Feed a Family with GDP.

What needs to happen now, is that the bottom-two economic quintiles need to become empowered by government policies.

Two-fifths of the population of the UK and other EU nations (but my example will centre on the UK) need the following policies ASAP:

1) Every citizen that earns less than 25,000 euros per year, should no longer be required to pay income tax.

That will add disposable income by the exact amount that they presently pay in taxes.

It would protect millions of Britons from severe economic hardship and lower the pressure on welfare rolls -- at relatively low cost to the Chancellor of the Exchequer.

Once Britain leaves the EU, the amount could simply switch to 25,000 pounds, annually. (A bit of an upgrade for them)

2) Annual transit passes, free of charge, to those who report earnings of less than 25,000 annually.

In those tax brackets, the difference between having the ability to go out and look for work, or not, is the price of a bus ticket or subway ticket. (Yes, really)

And then, what to do if they actually land a job? Until their first paycheque, they can't afford to travel back and forth to their new job.

It creates a terrible dilemma for people in those sorts of situations.

3) Free medical and dental coverage, and free doctor-approved prescriptions for those who report under 25,000/yr on their income tax forms.

Yes, that sounds expensive. However, taxpayers are paying for all of that and more now!

Emergency room visits (which are extremely costly) for everything from medical problems, to abscessed teeth, to patients that can't afford their life-saving medications, etc, are FAR MORE EXPENSIVE to the nation, than are basic and free med, dental, prescriptions coverage for people in those tax brackets.

Not to mention days lost (and jobs lost) due to illness that people in those tax brackets can't afford to properly address.

In any detailed study of productivity in the United States, a telling stat is always found by diligent researchers -- and that is, productivity would increase 18% from its current level simply by having (an entity, like a corporation, or any level of government, or an NGO) pay for the under $25,000 workers to have free universal healthcare, free dental care, and free prescriptions.

Yes, it matters to productivity that much.

By fully covering these people, wait times in Hospitals are drastically reduced, emergency room budgets fall, days lost due to illness falls dramatically, and jobs lost due to longer-term illness than corporations usually tolerate, falls dramatically.

Free basic medical, dental and prescription coverage for those in the under 25,000 tax bracket becomes a *net gain* for the nation -- as compared to the present status quo.

And it's a big net gain.
_____
If all three proposals were enacted in the UK; Instead of 2/5ths of the population being negatively affected by globalization and being permanently angry about it, fully half of them would be able to see modest economic success, health improvements, employment prospects, and general quality of life improvements...

...Leaving only 1/5th of the population to be concerned about. And only an economic boom -- or a Guaranteed Basic Income (GBI) that replaces welfare and other social programme spending (of approx. 1000 euros per month) is going to solve the problems of the very bottom economic quintile.

And let's not forget, their problems are our problems -- because those poor, disillusioned, and angry citizens tend to engage in more property crime and assaults, therefore, they require more per capita policing, court time, incarceration, and medical treatment -- and society pays for all that.

The bonus for corporations and the government is an 18% increase to the existing productivity stat which will help the corporate bottom line and improve national GDP.
_____
It's a mistake to simply pay them all a Guaranteed Basic Income, however. A country cannot afford to pay 2/5ths of it's citizens a GBI.

But by lowering the income tax burden, the medical burden and by lowering the transportation costs for 1/5th of the population, that particular economic quintile won't need the GBI...

...Leaving only the bottom economic quintile needing GBI, in addition to the three other benefits noted above.

Not only is that affordable, it's a net gain for a country.

It would be a great thing to see the UK be the first nation to address the inequality caused by (an otherwise great) globalization economy, to see productivity increase, to lower societal costs, to see more employed/employable workers, and to see healthier citizens.

And voters would tend to re-elect incumbent politicians, instead of anger ruling their voting decisions.

Thank you, Nouriel, for tackling this topic, and for setting an important conversation in motion.

I havent looked recently but would expect bulk shipping costs from China to Europe to be less than 10cents US per Kg. Labour costs of 1/10 of the EU would be required to massively rise before any shipping cost rise bites. The most effective shiping cost impact would be a green tax but this is fought every inch of the way by China

'It is hard, however, to attribute the decline in consumer goods demand solely to Brexit risk. Consumer confidence has ebbed lately, but it has remained high by past standards. We think that weaker demand for consumer goods reflects a fundamental slowdown in households’ real income growth. Inflation is slowly picking up, employment growth has faded markedly, and welfare spending cuts intensified in April.'

Households' are very much attuned to their real situation, and putting the uncertainty of Brexit aside as this assessment was pre Brexit it has to be noted this is the UK supposedly one of the shining lights. By definition events in the EZ are likely to be worse. By definition overall decline means simply that the vast majority are losers. A shortage of winners to bleed money from means Brexit acts are a very rational local act to curtail hemorrhage, whether anybody thinks they are right or wrong. It is very noticable shouting about Brexit is coming from those who voted Remain. Thousands of jobs in traditional activities have disappeared even very recently without Remain agitators being remotely concerned. Failure to address the decline problem in the EU is due to structural problems in the EU and particularly the EZ. Central to this problem is the fact Germany cannot afford to let the EZ as currently structured to fail if it can be made to last just one more day, then just one more day. The alarm bells are already ringing for DB

Against this backdrop up to 30% of EU jobs may be affected by AI and robots generating more losers. It is not hard to see losers becoming the majority

'.. economic theory suggests that ..'(NR) to which Yogi Bera has the answer - 'In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.' The majoprity of people are not interested in your theory. The only thing which is spread about in the EU is losses not winnings

'The backlash against globalization is real and growing. But it can be contained and managed through policies that compensate workers for its collateral damage and costs.' NR. This is a truely pathetic statement because it is devoid of any means and totally detatched from the events all around us. The winners in the EU for example are the likes of Poland who have had a 3 fold expansion in GDP and 100billion euros in EU handouts but still Poles have income levels 1/5 of the UK, Globally it is China with a income levels 1/10 or less than the UK - and you are suggesting they make transfers to the losers in the UK. Seldom have I seen such an abject failure to think

Economists never live in the real world but in a fantasy world. Compensate the losers? We have been hearing that for 40 years you know what it never happens! The people in control of the government through campaign donations, well paid speeches, and consulting fees are NOT interested in compensating the losers the current situation suits them just fine.
US Morlocks in the basement have been watching social/medical/education services cut and cut again as more migrants and natives are forced into these shrinking services. At the same time the taxes on the winners corporate and personal shrink and shrink again. For some reason it makes us think the fix is in. I wonder why?
This is democracy? Don't make me laugh. When every single decision maker in the congress, the executive and the courts are either rich or blatantly beholden to the rich it is oligarchy government of by and for the rich. We Morlocks hate globalization because for all economists talk it is not an infinite pie instead it is a zero sum gain and we Morlocks are the blatant losers of the game.

Agreed. Compensation to the "losers" will never happen! Just look at the Conservatives record. In 2008 the previous govt set up a regional immigration impact fund to help areas that were overwhelmed with migrants so that we could increase spending in basic services like schools/hospitals etc. In 2010 the Conservatives scrapped it! This wasn't even really about compensating the losers - it was just about providing the bare minimum of infrastructure required to meet the needs of the increased population!

The practice of compensating the losers requires raising funds from the winners. Redistribution of wealth, in favor of a specific group, for a specific purpose. The kind of stuff that causes shortness of breath in many economic policy advocates. And also, the kind of thing that requires maintaining a balance of power between governments and business.

The very essence of the dominant market-purist mode of globalization is opposed to the kind of compensation we're talking about, and for good reason. If governments who were negotiating free-trade treaties were obligated to compensate the "losers" within their borders, the arrangements they would negotiate would turn out quite differently.

Moreover, large scale compensation would be a pretty big step toward abandoning of one of the central tenets of "globalization", the market-purist set of beliefs.

The real discontent among losers seems to lie in their feelings of lost control as decisions affecting their lives are taken to levels beyond direct democratic control by international negotiations and other devices, like "independent" central banks and court justices with tenure for life. It might be helpful to review the place of all such arrangements in modern democracies. Term limits for justices, sunset clauses for all international agreements and government control of monetary policy would ensure regular democratic review of all government policies and ensure that discontent was not allowed to fester and explode as it has in Britain.

Many of those who ridicule climate change deniers correctly point out that 99% of all PhD meteorologists agree that carbon dioxide is associated with rising global temperatures. However free-trade opponents do not consider the fact that that 99% of all PhD economists agree that free-trade and the TPP in particular will greatly benefit America and raise standards of living .
Protectionism is the progressivism of fools. Gandhi was a great statesman but a horrible economist. Just as the ignorant in the USA argue that American workers who earn $15 per hour should not have to compete with Chinese workers who make $2 per hour, Gandhi thought that Indian workers should not have to compete with American and European workers who have the benefit of modern machines. As a result India adopted protectionism. In 1947 the per capita income of India was similar to countries such a South Korea. By 1977 the per capita income and standard of living in South Korea was ten times that of India. India has since largely abandoned protectionism and has benefited immensely from free trade. Just as David Ricardo proved would be the case when he developed the concept of comparative advantage.
Protectionism can save jobs. In the USA the best measurement of the cost per job saved to the rest of the country is about $1 million per job saved. Saving one job might provide $100,000 in gains to the worker and the employer who benefit from the protectionism, but cost the rest of the country $1,000,000. Since the million dollars is just one third of one cent per person in the USA, no one notices it.
To save a million jobs via protectionism would cost the country a S trillion which would be about the same impact as a very severe recession. To save 10 million jobs via protectionism would cost the country a S10 trillion. That would make the USA a poorer country than Mexico. That would mean it would be likely the people born in the USA would be going to Mexico to work as servants and dishwashers. The degree of impoverishment that would result from that much protectionism is usually only associated with severe natural disasters or wars.

“....Equally unhelpful in terms of addressing the income and wealth inequality are various non-tax factors. Issues such as minimum wage laws, unwed mothers, globalization, free trade, unionization, problems with our education system and infrastructure can increase the income and wealth inequality. However, these are extremely minor when compared to the shift of the tax burden from the rich to the middle class. It is the compounding effect of shift away from taxes on capital income such as dividends each year as the rich get proverbially richer which is the prime generator of inequality…”
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642

Firstly real wages in the West has steadlily headed downwards for decades, it is nothing new and will continue. It is simple supply and demand on the global labour market. With growing wage compression will come rising discontent

Secondly the middle class is numerically shrinking as a head count as well as its income dropping. The middle class is a dangerous group to disenfranchise, because they know which levers to pull in the system

Thirdly inequality concentrates wealth so redistribution becomes very obvious and if levered too much will cause flight. The whole principle of globalisation is mobility

Fourthly as the EU continues to decline and much needed reform becomes continually blocked by voters political fragmentation will continue. For example France at 20% labour cost disadvantage with Germany has growing economic problems. Italy is running into reform problems and may have a political crisis shortly

Fifthly the advantage of low price commodities pales when forced unemployment occurs and it shoud be noted above all that youth unemployment is marching steadily upwards. You will have social unrest growing with 25% to 50% young unemployment which is now common in many places

Finally please note that whilst the West is broadly static in its population the rest of the world is due to double in population and as these so called emerging economies focus on supplying commodities to the West they sure as hell are going to head into an economic swamp

There is no 'managed' 'compensation' mechanism that can cope with this because in fact there are very very few winners. That is why in a country like the UK which has a high per capita income and welfare and healthcare provison Brexit occurred. The same trends are now widespread and in countries without the standard of living in the UK. The idea 'compensation' can occur over ever extending populations can only be described as a form of madness and sounds very much like socialism which is a boat that dont float. In fact it dont float so much it is a submarine

Globalisation is a numbers game, to discuss it you need to look at the numbers, fudgespeak is a waste of time

What nonsense. This was not a populist revolt against globalisation, it was much more a statement that over 17 million voters in the UK do not want their laws made by people they cannot sanction. Brexiters argued throughout that the objective was to have the UK follow its own path as a global trader, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand and the 180 other states in the world, who belong to international but not to supranational bodies.

Only supranational bodies can solve the basic problem of tax-based inequality.

"..The enormous shift in tax policy favoring the rich has been a world-wide phenomena going on for many years. After the Socialist party candidate François Hollande won the presidential election, France enacted tax laws that gave France the most progressive tax system among the 20 largest industrial nations. However, the world-wide the tax systems have become so much less progressive in the past decades, that if the tax code that France has today were applied to France in 1969, France would have had the most regressive tax system among the 20 countries in 1969.

A major component of the shift of the tax burden from the rich onto the middle class involves the corporate income tax , whose incidence falls entirely on the owners of corporations. Corporate income taxes were 4% of GDP in 1969 and are now less than 1%. The reduction in corporate taxes has not necessarily been the result of political power on the part of corporations. Rather it was part of an international “bidding war” among countries to see who could induce corporations to move from one country to a jurisdiction to another with a lower corporate tax. Even if were politically feasible, the United States could not unilaterally reinstate the corporate income tax rates back to 1969 levels..."
http://seekingalpha.com/article/1543642

That is like saying the patient died of organ failure and completely ignoring the cancer that caused the organ failure. You are right about the proximate cause but Roubini is right about the overall cause. I see no arguement here.

New Comment

Pin comment to this paragraph

After posting your comment, you’ll have a ten-minute window to make any edits. Please note that we moderate comments to ensure the conversation remains topically relevant. We appreciate well-informed comments and welcome your criticism and insight. Please be civil and avoid name-calling and ad hominem remarks.

Log in/Register

Please log in or register to continue. Registration is free and requires only your email address.

Log in

Register

Emailrequired

PasswordrequiredRemember me?

Please enter your email address and click on the reset-password button. If your email exists in our system, we'll send you an email with a link to reset your password. Please note that the link will expire twenty-four hours after the email is sent. If you can't find this email, please check your spam folder.